[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories
• From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
• Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 14:26:35 +0000
• In-reply-to: <16063.41899.268073.836992@m...>
• References: <20030511172906.6BFC3134184@b...> <opro0w0xi6ezizxn@s...> <8anubvsq7v6r4bfopm631p5rjt100li4ha@4...> <16063.32051.866119.903922@m...> <vg3vbv0p88jjqd7dedju3f0rof1lgjddkn@4...> <16063.41899.268073.836992@m...>

David Megginson <david@m...> wrote:
| Arjun Ray writes:

|> I don't remember when Montreal was, or what it had to do with anything,
|> sorry.
| 
| It was at the August conference that later became "Extreme Markup"
| that the XML activity was reorganized and rechartered.

| The rechartering and reorganization did not take place until later
| that August -- the draft that Jon announced in this message was one
| that we (the original WG members) had approved, and it was very close
| to the final REC. 

Ah, OK.  I regret never having paid any attention to the administrative
bumpf - for instance, when the ERB/WG was reorganized into the WG/SIG in
Summer '97, I didn't note for how long the structure had been chartered
(one year, as it happened?)  

I take it, then, that the proceedings at the August conference were part
of a long scheduled reorg?  If so, I imagine there would have been some
"pressure" - naturally, self-imposed - to reach closure and push something
out the door before lights-out.

| I'm not suggesting that everyone was thrilled with it, or with the W3C 
| staff.

Sure.  Which, unfortunately, is part of my larger point.  I believe that
an unconscionable amount of time and energy of many good people was wasted
on having to produce something on Namespaces regardless.  The XML Activity
was railroaded into retrofitting "justifications" for colonified names.
The WG was not allowed to say to the W3C: "we have more important things
to think about".

| Can you name anyone from the original XML WG who asked to be involved 
| in the new XML plenary but was not allowed to be?

That wasn't the point.  The point was not asking at all.  As in, give up
and move on.

| As for the SIG, again, it's hard to remember all the details, but I
| know that some people (probably including me) argued that the SIG no
| longer [made] sense 

Actually, it never made sense.  I, for one, should have quit in Summer 97
when the list was taken "inhouse". 

| Note that I'm not defending or attacking the W3C structure or staff or
| the 1998 reorganization, but I do want to set the record straight
| about any conspiracy theories. 

No one is suggesting conspiracy theories.  It's about how W3C Process
works.  Some people get their way.  Others may lie in the road for a
while, but usually they find better things to do.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• References:
  • Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@f...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>
  • Re: Yo' mama's non-technical aguments
    • From: Arjun Ray <aray@n...>
  • W3C Conspiracy Theories
    • From: David Megginson <david@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: nostalgia (was RE: Ten new XQuery)
• Next by Date: Re: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
• Previous by thread: W3C Conspiracy Theories
• Next by thread: Re: W3C Conspiracy Theories
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread